PDA

View Full Version : Son taken from father after being given Mike's Hard Lemonade...



CBiebel
05-03-2008, 02:35 AM
I didn't see this mentioned here before. Talk about a bit of overreaction on the part of authorities. It turns out that a guy took his son to a ballgame and decided to buy him a lemonade, not realizing that Mike' Hard Lemonade is an alcoholic beverage. As a result, they took the child away and put him into foster care for a few days.


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080428/COL04/804280375

liff
05-03-2008, 07:41 AM
Sounds like the authorities did the right thing to me.

If this guy is such an acedemic, than he can read, then he should have read the bottle. Or he could have figured out that the price for the lemonade was a bit higher than he would expect? (same price or so for a beer?) I know prices at a ball game are seriously inflated, but the price for a lemonaade should have been about the same for a coke, not a beer.


Maybe a bit of an over-reaction, but what would you do if you saw a child this young drinking? I would have done the same thing that the security guard did. Take the alcohol away and call the cops.

Liff

ucflumberjack
05-03-2008, 08:30 AM
I dont think that the security guard overreacted but i think the cops did. Obviously it was a mistake, why take the kid away from his parents? THe kid was probably more stressed out by being taken away from his pareents than he would have been had he gotten sick from the lemonade.

Edit; Child Protective Services overreacted, the cops were covering their asses. Kind of pathetic that people have to make stupid decisions just to cover their asses and avoid any liability.

WRATHWILDE
05-03-2008, 11:28 AM
This is the problem with America, the issue isn't whether the Government Overreacted but why they acted at all. Why do we as a society think the proper roll of the police is to interfere with your rights as a parent to raise your children as you see fit. The Government should have no say in how you raise your children... NONE!!! If a parent wants to teach their children to drink responsibly that should be up to them... Whether it's Beer, Wine or Moonshine made in the Family Still. The government shouldn't have any authority in Family Matters except in Cases of Physical Injuries (A thresh hold that should be set higher than a belt to the backside), Abuse or Rape (Pedophilia in a Family Constitutes Rape in my opinion). Otherwise they should not be involved. And only if there is an official complaint, not Govt Employees and doctors compelled to report every bruise for fear that they'll be liable if they don't report it to the authorities.

My 2 cents,
Wrathwilde

Medsen Fey
05-03-2008, 11:44 AM
From the article:
But there was really nothing any of them could do, they all said. They were just adhering to protocol, following orders.

Some of the greatest crimes against humanity have been carried out by folks who have said much the same thing. Systems which push people to follow procedures they know (or should know) are wrong need to be changed.

liff
05-03-2008, 12:55 PM
Why do we as a society think the proper roll of the police is to interfere with your rights as a parent to raise your children as you see fit. The Government should have no say in how you raise your children... NONE!!!

There was recently a case where the parents had a child with insulin dependant diabetes, the parents would not allow the child to be injected with insulin and the child died. Or maybe a hypothetical case of where the parent's idea of 'discipline' results in broken bones.

I think society should have a say, however small, but a say in how you raise your children.


Some of the greatest crimes against humanity have been carried out by folks who have said much the same thing. Systems which push people to follow procedures they know (or should know) are wrong need to be changed.


Plus one.

Liff

WRATHWILDE
05-04-2008, 02:42 AM
There was recently a case where the parents had a child with insulin dependant diabetes, the parents would not allow the child to be injected with insulin and the child died. Or maybe a hypothetical case of where the parent's idea of 'discipline' results in broken bones


1st - The parents didn't know their child had diabetes, as she hadn't been to the Doctor since she was 3 years old. They didn't refuse to allow her to be injected, they just never sought medical attention.

2nd - Death by medical neglect falls under abuse, and the authorities are right to step in... although I don't think sentencing them to 25 years in prison is the answer, which is what they could be looking at. Since they already lost that which is most precious to them... I suggest community service of 5 years in a children's hospital, it's not likely these parents will reoffend even if they have other children.

3rd - 'Discipline" resulting in broken bones would fall under physical injuries of a thresh hold higher than a belt to the backside.

We need sentences for non-violent offenses that do the most good for society... not sentences that provide the most punishment. And of course all "consensual" crimes should be wiped off the books, as well as all drug laws.

OFF TOPIC RANT on Drug Laws -
If any crime is committed under the influence treat it exactly the same as if the crime was committed sober. The fact that a suspect was in possession of or under the influence of (XYZ) while robbing a gas station should make no difference to his sentencing - the crime is robbing a gas station, not a substance for personal consumption in his pocket, why should extra years be added to a sentence for possession, or public intoxication when it is irrelevant to the crime and not the "real" crime?

We could knock out most of the organized crime in America (excluding the US Government) if we just legalized drugs. Kids would have to stay in school if they wanted to be a drug dealer... they'd have to become pharmacists.

They also wouldn't be able to fund their own addiction by selling to friends... as most small time dealers start out (this is also how most out of control addictions start). Out of control addictions would be much less of a problem in a legal supply chain because people wouldn't have access to bulk quantities needed to feed the extreme levels of addiction, and they wouldn't be able to finance their habit through sales to friends and "stepping on" their product to expand their personal supply.

Since bulk purchases would be a red flag in a legal setting you would have very few people selling to kids on the black market as the quantities available to them wouldn't be able to supply the demand. Also - Ask any kid to score you prescription drugs and you will find they have a much tougher time getting ahold of prescription drugs than the illegal ones. There is a lesson there!

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

Launcelot
05-04-2008, 03:06 AM
The entire drug law thing is completely ridiculous.

It is paramount to seat belt laws...

Everyone with an iota of intelligence agree's seatbelts are a good idea.

Making a law just means more bullshit fines. More hassles. The very concept that the reason behind it was to protect joe taxpayer from the horrible idiots that didn't wear them and ran up medical expenses for everyone is complete tripe. I mean think it through, what part of the system is it that we are paying for here? there is no state medical of any merit.

It's just one more case of the laws to pad the pocket of the state.

There are no "illegal drugs" there are "controlled substances" The very method that was used to place these controls is of very questionable legality.

In addition the largest proponents of firmer drug laws are the large pharmaceutical companies. Why? because it would be harder to sell you more new dope if the good old stuff was easily available.

I have a degree in biochem, and I look at things with a pretty skeptical eye especially after reviewing the means and methods that have been applied with the drug control laws and the completely bullshit "facts" supporting it.

Personally I abuse the shit out of chemicals. I drink, I smoke, and I occasionally have been known to partake of things less legal. The tighter they control it the more likely that I am to ignore those laws. I have never nor would I ever put anyone at risk. I am college educated (very well) and I am a business owner and contributor to the community... Like a lot of casual users are. I just don't do anything to excess and have a very strong sense of responsibility. End of story in my eyes, I already disprove the theory of "Who the bad users are" From my perspective, it is a statistical myth.

--L

liff
05-04-2008, 09:10 AM
First topic in this thread: Society/government having a say in how you raise your kids.

Wrathwilde, all I was trying to show is how government does and should have a say. I brought up a few extreme cases, and it seems that we agree. A very small say, but a say none the less.

I believe in the 2 roles of government, defend the constitution and protect the citizens. These examples all fall under the 2nd half of that premise. Those children are citizens and should be protected from people, genetically related to them or not.

If you disagree with this, please make the arguement that children living in a meth house are better off than in foster care.

Second topic in this thread: Controlled substances.

Launcelot is correct, there is no such thing as an 'illegal drug', only controlled substances category one. These are things that have no medical value. Heroin has no medical value. Cocaine has medical value and it is legal (in certain dose forms). So in these dose forms, cocaine is a controlled substance category two. Along with percocet, hydromorphone, fentanyl, methylphenidate, and so on. This goes all the way down to codine which is in the 5th category. Sorry for the redundancy for those who didn't need that background.

There are some drugs that should never be taken due to the idea of 'social harm'. (Again with the protect the citizens idea.) And there are some that should be allowed to be sold like tobacco and alcohol are now. My opinion.

Third, Why am I the damned moderate in this?! What the hell? Life is shades of gray, never black and white. 3 people say absolutely no society/government involvement in our lives, and 2 people that say every drug should be legal. I am the only one that says that I agree with those ideas, but not 100%?


In addition the largest proponents of firmer drug laws are the large pharmaceutical companies. Why? because it would be harder to sell you more new dope if the good old stuff was easily available.

Reference please.

Oskaar
05-04-2008, 12:02 PM
I say we should be able to drink and drive (see Louisiana for the drive through daiquiri and margarita stands) with a loaded gun (see Texas travelers laws) and call people out for a duel on point of honor (there are still several states in the union whose constitutions provide for disenfranchisement or disqualification from holding public office for dueling) if my honor be so offended.

It seems to me that as soon as politics enter any discussion thread it goes straight to hell. I don't think this is much of a surprise since meadmakers trend toward as widely divergent political viewpoints as they do approaches to meadmaking. Bottom line is that in my opinion people with differing political viewpoints tend to be more widely polarized during election years (go figure) and are especially prone to jumping feet first onto topics of discussion that pull politics, government and law into the mix.

Don't blame me, I'm voting for Bill and Opus!

Oskaar

vahan
05-04-2008, 01:00 PM
A nice discussion of laws/politics/personal views! What a fine country we live in!

Also, it is nice to be a part of such a diverse group as Got Mead where we are all bound by the brotherhood and sisterhood of loving such a fine beverage, despite having dramatically different backgrounds and viewpoints.

There are always interesting laws on the books which once served a good purpose, but may not have been updated for modern times. In Connecticut, we have "Blue Laws" forbidding the sale of any alcohol on Sunday--this goes back to Puritain times. In my town, we cannot park our cars on the street from 2AM to 5AM which goes back to the 1800's in order to prevent caravans of wagons (read -- Gypsies or Native Americans) from camping on the streets.

cheers,
vahan

WRATHWILDE
05-04-2008, 01:26 PM
Don't blame me, I'm voting for Bill and Opus!


Oskaar's senility is setting in... your choices this year are Laura Roslin or Airlock.

Cheers,
Wrathwilde

(I still haven't decided)

GrantLee63
05-04-2008, 02:08 PM
I was given 'drinks' as far back as I can remember - my mother would give me a little brandy when I was sick, I can rememeber my grandfather letting me have as many 'sips' as I wanted from his bottle of Stroh's beer (this was in the early 1960's when Stroh's was actually 1) brewed in Detroit, MI, and 2) the only fire-brewed beer in America!), and my grandmother making tea for me in which was added a 'drop' of 151 rum. Hell, I can remember taking sips of beer from adults (grandfather and uncle) at the old Tiger Stadium (pre Comerica Park, where this incident took place) back in those days as well!

And guess what? I did the same with my 3 kids (except for the Tiger Stadium 'sips') who are now all adults. None of us have developed any abuse issues. All of us are respectable citizens. All of us have developed an appreciation and high respect for alcoholic beverages. Now, I'm not going to get into a political discussion as I don't want to risk offending anyone and getting my PP whacked, but I believe I've made my point.

- GL63

Oskaar
05-05-2008, 12:25 AM
Here's a link to a previous thread that some of you who have been around for a while will recongnize.

http://www.gotmead.com/smf/index.php?topic=2469.msg19587#msg19587

I locked down the referenced thread so we don't have people reviving a discussion in the orphan section.

Cheers,

Oskaar

wayneb
05-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Thanks for reviving that reference, Oskaar! This information is important enough to keep bringing it back up from time to time. With my ethnic heritage, fermented beverages were also a part of every family celebration in my house when I was growing up, so I definitely concur. And, as a result of exposure to my experiments (including judicious tasting) my kids do not equate alcoholic beverages with "forbidden fruit," but they also know full well that alcohol needs to be treated with respect -- we have a couple very close members of the family who are alcoholics, and the difficulties associated with uncontrolled consumption of alcohol are all too apparent to my kids as well.